Facts
Eight applicants, employed in various capacities (UDC, Supervisor, etc.) at the Ordnance Factory, Muradnagar, filed an Original Application seeking the grant of Grade Pay (GP) of ₹4600/-, effective from the date it was granted to their alleged junior, Respondent No. 4 (Shri Ranvir Singh)
Source reference: p. 3Respondent No. 4, a Record Supplier, was granted the upgraded GP of ₹4600/- effective June 11, 2013, following a specific court mandate in Kanchid Singh v. UOI, which applied to erstwhile Group ‘D’ cadres like Record Suppliers
Source reference: p. 9The official respondents contested the claim, stating that the applicants and Respondent No. 4 belonged to different cadres with diverse appointment dates, pay scales, and promotion trajectories
Source reference: p. 8, 9The respondents further argued that financial upgradations under ACP/MACP schemes are personal to the employee and do not confer a right of parity to seniors
Source reference: p. 8Issues
1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the "stepping up" of their pay to ₹4600/- at par with Respondent No. 4 based on the principle of seniority
Source reference: p. 72. Whether the applicants satisfied the statutory conditions for pay parity as stipulated under Fundamental Rule 22 and the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008
Source reference: p. 23Law Applied
The court primarily applied Fundamental Rule 22 (FR 22), which governs pay fixation upon promotion or appointment to posts with greater responsibilities
Source reference: p. 10It relied on Note 10 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, which mandates that for "stepping up" to be permissible: (a) both employees must belong to the same cadre; (b) the posts and pay scales must be identical; and (c) the senior must have been drawing equal or more pay than the junior prior to the anomaly
Source reference: p. 17The court also cited the DOPT OM dated August 9, 1999, clarifying that financial upgradations under the ACP/MACP schemes are personal to the employee and have no relevance to seniority
Source reference: p. 8the DOPT OM dated October 26, 2018, which lists specific instances where stepping up is inadmissible
Source reference: p. 18-19Reasoning
The Tribunal held that the "stepping up" of pay is not an automatic right but is contingent upon meeting strict criteria.
Source reference: p. 22-23The applicants failed to provide a seniority list to prove they were senior to Respondent No. 4 at the specific "inflection point" when the pay disparity arose
Source reference: p. 22-23The court observed that the applicants and Respondent No. 4 moved through different service hierarchies and cadres; thus, they did not satisfy the requirement of belonging to the "same cadre" or holding "identical posts"
Source reference: p. 23the Tribunal noted that Respondent No. 4's pay was revised due to his specific status in an erstwhile Group 'D' cadre (Record Supplier) and a specific judicial direction, which did not apply to the applicants' cadres
Source reference: p. 9Since ACP and MACP benefits are personal to the individual and the anomaly did not arise directly from the application of FR 22, the principle of non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 was not attracted as the parties were not on equal footing
Source reference: p. 24Holding
The Tribunal answered both issues in the negative, holding that the applicants failed to establish a legal right to pay parity with Respondent No. 4
The court ruled that the OA lacked merit because the mandatory conditions for stepping up pay—identical cadres and posts—were not met
Source reference: p. 23The Original Application was dismissed, and all pending Miscellaneous Applications were disposed of accordingly
Source reference: p. 24Original Court PDF
Indra PrasadvsM/o Defence
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in